From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: No calc in pretest? Date: 02 Jul 2002 22:55:49 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xwusdetnu.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <200207021917.g62JHe419454@rum.cs.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025640035 13675 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2002 20:00:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:00:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Simon Josefsson , Emacs Devel Mailing List Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17PTpD-0003YS-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:00:35 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17PTuO-0003Pv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:05:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PTov-0008LC-00; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:00:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PTn3-0007xt-00 for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 15:58:21 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (unknown [10.1.82.3]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 352D47C017; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:55:11 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: "Stefan Monnier" In-Reply-To: <200207021917.g62JHe419454@rum.cs.yale.edu> Original-Lines: 19 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:5346 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5346 "Stefan Monnier" writes: > > > One reason is that we don't have to update :version fields and > > > documentation if there is a well defined versioning scheme. > > > > I sincerely doubt that the version-update problem will go away with > > _any_ versioning scheme. > > It will "go away" if the versioning scheme ensures that the version > number of a release can be determined long before the release happens > (i.e. is independent of any other release that might happen in the > mean time). Exactly. While our current numbering scheme cannot ensure that, other numbering schemes (some of which have been suggested here) can easily ensure this. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk